My guest today is Hillary Chuckleton, who has been heading the Institute for the Decidedly Not-Funny (or “IDNF” as it is most commonly referred to), for the past five decades. The science of what is, and what is decidedly-not funny has a rich history full of colorful characters who helped advance this obscure but important science. The following is an excerpt from an interview I had with Ms. Chuckleton in the winter of ‘Ot-six, as we toured a portion of the institute, which is situated on 1, 500 forested acres in Hobbcleff, VT.
(The names are abbreviated M, form “me”, and G, for “Hillary”)

M: Thank you for speaking with me, Hill, I can call you “Hill, ” can’t I?
G: I think that’d be just dandy. Many of my associates call me many things. “Hill” is certainly a new one, but it doesn’t bother me.

M: Great. So, Hill… this is quite a remarkable institution! Most people only hear about the IDNF when something tragic happens, but obviously there is much more to the IDNF than that. What can you tell us about the daily activities of this institution? What does your institution actually DO?
G: Well, that’s quite a broad question, a lot goes on here as you can see. However, much of our activities involve research. Every time a new product is released, for example, our institute has to test it for its HQ, or “Hilarity Quotient.” This is not as easy as it seems. Many things that are apparently not-funny can become funny in different contexts.

M: Can you think of an example?
G: Well, for example… take a pencil. Pencils aren’t terribly funny objects, right? But jam one in a ninja’s eye or give one to a monster and, well… you see my point. And objects are just one aspect of our research. Ideally, we are trying to analyze every object, location, event, situation, idea… everything… until we end up with a finalized list of those things which are decidedly not funny. We think this knowledge benefits all humanity.

M: That’s an incredible undertaking! How long has this institution been at it?
G: Well, the institution was established in 1874 by Lord Pompermeyer Fannigus Gillbert IV in London. He had a long standing disagreement with his bitter rival, Sir Norrius Tobbleton Scott of Wankchester, over whether or not blasphemy was funny. This was a widely publicized argument, and many of the leading scholars and theologians became heatedly engaged in the debate. When Lord Pompermeyer lost the argument, he was enraged, and disbanded the institute, which fled to safety in the new world, where it has been ever since.

M: Well… what happened with the argument??? Is blasphemy funny or not?
G: Yeah. It’s pretty funny.

M: Well… I’m sure my readers would love to know: How exactly do you test to see whether something is “decidedly not-funny”?
G: Well, we mostly use “the PLOP, ” or the “Progressive Laughing-Omission Protocol” for our tests. Basically, we draw a picture of the object, situation, idea etc. to be tested. Then we look at it. If we don’t laugh, we show it to children. If they don’t laugh, we show it to stoned teenagers. Finally, if the stoned teenagers don’t think it’s funny, we show it to stoned children. Most things can be found to be at least partially funny in this way. Cucumbers, for example, always pass as not funny down to the stoned teenagers, and then they’re instantly hilarious. Gets em’ everytime.

M: So if it makes it passed the stoned children it’s not funny?
G: No…no…no… That’s preliminary. The same method is employed again, using contextual combinations. Lets say a plane crash is being tested. This will usually make it past the preliminaries. We then include accessory knowledge to the context. For example, with the contextual knowledge that humans are primates, it is easy to interpret the incident as one involving “a jet-propelled, winged-metal-tube of monkeys plummeting from the stratosphere, the tube-confined primates all the while muttering in symbolic-monkey-speak to a monkey-shaped deity.” That is decidedly funny.

M: How many things have been tested so far?
G: Many hundreds of millions.

M: How many things have been found to be decidedly not-funny?
G: Well…… including all the ones discovered prior to our records becoming digital…..none so far… there have been many dozens of false negatives, though. Many times something will be maintained as not-funny for decades before a new interpretation or physical context reveals its funnitude. Presently, nothing holds the Decidedly Not-Funny (DNF) designation.

M: Not one?
G: So far, no. But we are still looking.

M: That’s hard to believe! There are many things which jump to mind as terribly not-funny. Mass-murder, viral epidemics, nuclear warfare, drowning bunnies… you can’t tell me these things are funny!?
G: That’s the remarkable thing. The universe is tragically hilarious, and all “things” are completely temporary, in any sense we’d recognize. We repeatedly encounter the same problem: Taken to a deep enough context, it’s hard to draw distinct lines between any-thing, so that if any-thing is funny, Everything is funny. The physics of it are as seemingly complex as they are elegant, but that’s what we do here.

M: Then why do you bother calling this place The Institute for the Decidedly NOT-Funny???
G: Because we think it’s funny.

~n

This entry was posted on Saturday, February 10th, 2007 at 10:37 pm and is filed under Human stuff, Nature of universe stuff, Random Nonsense. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.